A Concern About Operation Chaos

[red states rule]

Rush just announced that neither Democrat Candidate has the abiity to win the primary based on pledged delegates alone. Either must use the Super Delegates to get the required minimum. Therfore the Democrat voters have been disenfranchised, and the decision resides with the elites within the party.

This will rip the Democrat Party apart either way!

That is the Dems way

Party hacks will make the choice for the voters, since they can't

[typomaniac]

Jews are known to have an average IQ fully 7 points higher than the mean in America (100 mean). What this results in is a much greater number of people, proportionately, in the "smart people jobs" like profs, doctors, lawyers, executives, etc. The minimum for "smart people jobs" is thought to be about 124 IQ. So it's not the mean IQ that matters: it's having a greater or lesser proportion of people capable of advanced work.

My point exactly: more people in what you call "smart people jobs" end up being innovators and employers, creating more jobs and wealth for everyone else.

Except of course, for the idiots who insist on blaming everything on the liberal intellectuals.

[mundame]

Rush just announced that neither Democrat Candidate has the abiity to win the primary based on pledged delegates alone. Either must use the Super Delegates to get the required minimum. Therfore the Democrat voters have been disenfranchised, and the decision resides with the elites within the party.

This will rip the Democrat Party apart either way!

Very likely.

I am counting on the superdelegates deciding for Hillary --- because when they threw out the "smoke-filled rooms" after the 1968 debacle and put in a totally democratically elected convention as a response to the indignant riots in the streets of Chicago ------------------------ the result was McGovern.

That was a whoops.

So then they invented the superdelegates as a way of keeping inexperienced dems at the convention from falling in love with improbable candidates.

Well, that isn't working, considering Obama. (Obama? We are supposed to have a President OBAMA????? darn. This is just sad.)

Dems clearly have a major, major problem with nominating impossible candidates ---- McGovern, Dukakis, Kerry, now Obama. I suppose that's unfair to Kerry --- he came closer than the others, anyway. And the GOP is good at sorting out the most appealing candidate to the general election voters.

So all in all, I think the Dems seriously NEED the superdelegates to take over and make an informed and considered decision.



For Hillary.

[red states rule]

Very likely.

I am counting on the superdelegates deciding for Hillary --- because when they threw out the "smoke-filled rooms" after the 1968 debacle and put in a totally democratically elected convention as a response to the indignant riots in the streets of Chicago ------------------------ the result was McGovern.

That was a whoops.

So then they invented the superdelegates as a way of keeping inexperienced dems at the convention from falling in love with improbable candidates.

Well, that isn't working, considering Obama. (Obama? We are supposed to have a President OBAMA????? darn. This is just sad.)

Dems clearly have a major, major problem with nominating impossible candidates ---- McGovern, Dukakis, Kerry, now Obama. I suppose that's unfair to Kerry --- he came closer than the others, anyway. And the GOP is good at sorting out the most appealing candidate to the general election voters.

So all in all, I think the Dems seriously NEED the superdelegates to take over and make an informed and considered decision.



For Hillary.

Mundame, it is refreshing to see party leaders treating their voters like the rest of America

You are to damn stupid to know what to do - so we will do it for you. You are to damn stupid to know what is best for you - so we will make the choices for you

No matter who the SD's pick, half of the Dem party wil be pissed off - and that is a good thing

[typomaniac]

I am counting on the superdelegates deciding for Hillary ---

I'm not.

The superdelegates are there to vote according to the best interest of the party as a whole.

Therefore, if the polls at convention time show Obama with a bigger lead over McCain than Hillary's, guess what: the SDs will back Obama, and rightly so. Or vice versa.

Either way, most pissed-off Democrats are still going to vote Dem in November, no matter what they're saying now.

[theHawk]

The superdelegates are there to vote according to the best interest of the party as a whole.

Thats the whole point, SDs decide it however they want. Its not decided by the people in the primaries.

[typomaniac]

Thats the whole point, SDs decide it however they want. Its not decided by the people in the primaries.

Well, if you find it so objectionable, switch parties and work to get the system changed.

[theHawk]

Well, if you find it so objectionable, switch parties and work to get the system changed.

Naw, I don't want to be apart of a party that doesn't let the voters decide. Not to mention there is no guarantee they'll even count my state's delegates and popular vote at all.

[red states rule]

Naw, I don't want to be apart of a party that doesn't let the voters decide. Not to mention there is no guarantee they'll even count my state's delegates and popular vote at all.

and this from the party that screamed "count every vote"

But that applies only if the party hacks agree with who the voters vote for

[Yurt]

Libs exist to divide people. Blacks VS whites; women VS men; old VS young; and employers VS employees

That is what Dems do best, then they claim they are the only ones who can "unite" the nation

very true. all the liberal media has reported on is how hillary won the "white" rural vote...barely a peep about how obama won 92% of the black vote...complete bias as if to show obama would have won, but for, the rural racist whites

[red states rule]

very true. all the liberal media has reported on is how hillary won the "white" rural vote...barely a peep about how obama won 92% of the black vote...complete bias as if to show obama would have won, but for, the rural racist whites

Get used to it. With a black liberal as the Dems possible nominee, the liberal media will be playing the rqce card on a daily basis

One of Barry's big supporters in the liberal media, Chris Matthews, is heart broken over the reuslts of the PA primary

Here is his spin

Matthews's Synonym for Bigotry: 'Culturally Conservative' on Race
By Mark Finkelstein | April 23, 2008 - 20:22 ET


In Chris Matthews's mind, a bigot is someone who's "culturally conservative" on race. Matthews equated the two on this evening's Hardball in attempting to explain exit polling from yesterday's PA primary showing that 38% of white Catholic Democrats wouldn't vote for Obama in the general election.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Well, somebody who doesn't like that group of voters might call them Archie Bunkers. I'll call them Reagan Democrats, John [Baer of the Philadelphia Daily News], they're Reagan Democrats: people who are culturally conservative, maybe a little culturally conservative on the racial front, on the ethnic front. They like to think of themselves as Democrats on the economic issues, but when it comes to the squeeze, on some of these cultural issues--didn't this all come up earlier about three weeks ago in San Francisco, this conversation.

So declining to vote for Barack Obama amounts to being "culturally conservative on the racial front." You wouldn't think that branding as bigots a broad swathe of the electorate would be the way to go for a budding senatorial candidate like Chris. In any case, it's revealing of Matthews's fundamental animus towards conservatism.

NB: the exit polling data displayed by Norah O'Donnell in the video clip doesn't identify the white Catholics as Dems, but so they would appear to be. This was exit polling done in the Dem primary, a closed primary restricted to registered Dems. So Operation Chaos folks aside, we're talking about Dems here, and Matthews identifies them as such. For that matter, if 59% of all white Catholics including Republicans were planning to vote for Obama, that would of course be a surprising landslide in his favor.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-fi...onservative-ra